3. Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer

2020 ◽  
pp. 40-69
Keyword(s):  
Pragmatic Transfer

Terminology in Interlanguage Pragmatics

2004 ◽  
Vol 143-144 ◽  
pp. 109-119
Author(s):  
Giao Quynh Tran
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Interlanguage Pragmatics ◽  
Pragmatic Transfer ◽  
Large Corpus

Abstract Inter language pragmatics research has spanned a number of different areas in second language acquisition and pragmatics. In the large corpus of interlanguage pragmatics studies, basic terms such as “interlanguage pragmatics”, “speech acts” and “pragmatic transfer” have been referred to more often than not. But rarely have we stopped to re-evaluate the applicability and appropriateness of these terms. This paper aims to properly interpret or redefine their meanings and to propose more appropriate terms where possible.

Pragmatic transfer

1992 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Kasper
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Interlanguage Pragmatics ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Pragmatic Transfer ◽  
Language Research ◽  
Linguistic Action ◽  
Core Areas ◽  
Basic Distinction ◽  
Pragmatic Knowledge

Throughout the short life of interlanguage pragmatics as a subdiscipline of second language research, it has been a virtually uncontested assumption that non-native speakers' comprehension and production of linguistic action is considerably influenced by their L1 pragmatic knowledge. The literature strongly supports this hypothesis. However, whereas there has been a lively controversy about the role of transfer in the traditional core areas of second language research (syntax, morphology, semantics), there has been little theoretical and methodological debate about transfer in interlanguage pragmatics. As a contribution to such a debate, this article seeks to clarify the concept of pragmatic transfer, proposing as a basic distinction Leech/Thomas' dichotomy of sociopragmatics versus pragmalinguistics and presenting evidence for transfer at both levels. Evidence for purported pragmatic universals in speech act realization and for positive and negative pragmatic transfer is discussed. Further issues to be addressed include the conditions for pragmatic transfer (transferability), the interaction of transfer with non-structural factors (proficiency, length of residence, context of acquisition), and the effect of transfer on communicative outcomes. The article concludes by briefly considering some problems of research method in studies of pragmatic transfer.

scholarly journals On the nature of cross-linguistic transfer: A case study of Andean Spanish

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTJE G. MUNTENDAM
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Andean Spanish ◽  
Pragmatic Transfer ◽  
Elicitation Study ◽  
Linguistic Transfer ◽  
Syntactic Properties ◽  
Elicitation Studies ◽  
Long Distance Movement

This paper presents the results of a study on cross-linguistic transfer in Andean Spanish word order. In Andean Spanish the object appears in preverbal position more frequently than in non-Andean Spanish, which has been attributed to an influence from Quechua (a Subject–Object–Verb language). The high frequency of preverbal objects could be explained by focus fronting. The main syntactic properties of focus fronting in Spanish are weak crossover and long distance movement. Two elicitation studies designed to test for these properties in non-Andean Spanish, Andean Spanish and Quechua show no evidence of syntactic transfer from Quechua into Andean Spanish. Rather, the analysis of naturalistic data and an elicitation study on question–answer pairs show that there is pragmatic transfer from Quechua into Andean Spanish. The study has implications for theories of syntax and language contact, and especially for the debate on the nature of cross-linguistic transfer.

scholarly journals Pragmatic Transfer in Advanced Saudi EFL Learners’ Refusals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jawaher Abdulaziz Hamad Al-Juraywi
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Family Health ◽  
Baseline Data ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Similar Frequency ◽  
Pragmatic Transfer ◽  
Refusal Strategies ◽  
Data Group

The present study investigated pragmatic transfer in the refusals of advanced Saudi learners of English as a foreign language (SEFL) in terms of the frequency and content of the emantic formulas, and whether their refusals correspond more to those of Saudi native speakers of Arabic (NSA) or native speakers of English (NSE). A total of 45 female subjects participated in the study and were divided into three groups: advanced SEFL as the target group (n = 15), NSA as a baseline data group (n = 15), and NSE as a baseline data group (n = 15). The study employed a mixed-method data collection approach consisting of a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) and semi-structured interviews. The collected data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively using the chi-square test and descriptive statistics. The results of the study revealed that pragmatic transfer was evident in the refusals of the SEFL group in both the frequency and content of semantic formulas. Moreover, the SEFL group’s realization of the speech act of refusal corresponded more to the NSA group than the NSE group. The analysis revealed that the SEFL group’s use of the direct refusal strategies, indirect refusal strategies, and adjuncts to refusals either resembled or approximated the NSA group’s use of the strategies to refuse all of the four stimulus types: requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions. Both the SEFL and NSA groups used the direct refusal strategies in a similar pattern; they used the direct strategies significantly less with interlocutors of a lower and higher social status, and significantly more with interlocutors of an equal social status. Furthermore, the content of the semantic formulas used by the SEFL group corresponded more to the content of the semantic formulas used by the NSA group in terms of the degree of specificity and the choice of the type of specific excuses. The SEFL group significantly approximated the NSA group’s use of both specific and unspecific excuses; they used three categories of specific excuses in a similar frequency: family, health, and personal preferences or needs.

Politeness and pragmatic transfer in L2 pronominal address usage

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yixin Wang
Keyword(s):  
High Power ◽  
First Language ◽  
Social Consequences ◽  
Pedagogical Intervention ◽  
Power Differential ◽  
Pragmatic Transfer ◽  
Address Forms ◽  
Chinese Learners ◽  
L1 Use ◽  
Pragmatic Knowledge

Abstract This study investigates how Chinese learners of Spanish, who have a T/V distinction in their first language (L1), use the T/V address forms in Spanish as a second language (L2). Findings show that the learners rely mainly on their L1 pragmatic knowledge to employ the T/V in the L2. Despite having relatively good grammatical control of T/V, the learners produced frequent T/V alternation due to negative pragmatic transfer. In Chinese using V normally conveys speaker’s perception of a high-power differential and in relationships that are borderline T or V usage, shifting from T to V can convey deference and tends to co-occur with face-threatening or face-enhancing acts. The learners transferred from Chinese their tendency to use V to express deference and overutilized this politeness strategy in Spanish regardless of their relationship with the addressee. This problematic usage may generate negative social consequences and calls for pedagogical intervention.

scholarly journals An Interlanguage Study of Request Perspective: Evidence from German, Greek, Polish and Russian Learners of English

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-209
Author(s):  
Eva Ogiermann ◽  
Spyridoula Bella
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
English Language ◽  
Alternative Explanation ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Language Teaching ◽  
English Language Teaching ◽  
Strong Preference ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
Pragmatic Transfer ◽  
Language Groups

Abstract The present study examines request perspective, the least researched form of mitigation in requesting, while focusing on a type of request characterized by a strong preference for speaker perspective in English and for hearer perspective in most other languages researched to date. It examines requests produced by 900 speakers from nine different (inter)language groups: five groups of native speakers (English, German, Greek, Polish and Russian) and four groups of advanced learners of English as a foreign language (German, Greek, Polish and Russian L1s). While our learners used more conventionally indirect forms than did the native speakers of the respective L1s, showing awareness of this English pragmatic norm, they retained a preference for the hearer perspective. These results suggest reliance on pragmatic universals as an alternative explanation to pragmatic transfer, also illustrating the need to address less salient pragmatic features in English language teaching.

Pragmatic transfer in interlanguage development

1997 ◽  
Vol 117-118 ◽  
pp. 151-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seran Doğançay Aktuna ◽  
Sibel Kamişli
Keyword(s):  
Pragmatic Transfer ◽  
Interlanguage Development
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document